A műemlékek sokszínűsége (A 28. Egri Nyári Egyetem előadásai 1998 Eger, 1998)

Előadások / Presentations - MEZŐS Tamás: What in german is known as „Bodendenkmalschutz”

Display of archaeological remains is a complex issue wherever it arises, regardless of the ambient culture, environment and climate. It is difficult to come up with a universally-applicable rule. An exhibition is normally designed for a particular person, and usually anticipates visitors and enquirers. In vulgar terms, the „Utility" of the exhibition is proved when thousands or tens of thousands (as in Aquincum) or hundreds of thousands (as in the great German and Austrian archaeological parks) come to see remains of the distant past. It is recognised that ruins and archaeological parks can never be self-sustaining. They are not set up with the aim of making a profit. Any community can only set up such sites if motivated by the wish to present architectural and cultural treasures to the public, and if it is prepared to shoulder the costs. But here there is a special feature, an attraction in the positive sense: a museological and educational idea which makes people interested in the past come and seen it. Looking at the Roman remains at Aquincum at the beginning of the 1970s, László Gerő remarked that it looked as if the Romans lived in site layouts and not in houses. Here too, there is a need, apart from constant refreshment of exhibits, to give an impression of how high Macellum's little rotunda was, to show off the Collegium Iuventutius' peristyle by re-erecting the pillars surrounding the courtyard, to raise a comer of the Forum, and not least by holding events: gladiator fights, floralia and theatre shows, like in Gorsium. At the latter site, such events are accompanied by the attempt to a give clear, nonverbose explanation of the purpose of each building. There is still a need for books, guides and informative signs to be produced in abundance so as to improve communication. This is what German monumental conservation does at a higher standard and a on larger scale. Even a little ruined guard tower in the forest beside the river Limes is easily found. At every site, maps show the conditions prevailing in the area when the buildings were new, as well as the location and role of the monument. Impressions of the original condition are given by reconstructed diagrams and photographs. Making precise distinctions between the original wall remains and restorative additions is not considered a priority anywhere, at least not in any of the Roman Empire „successor states" I am familiar with in Europe and Asia. We have often been asked by colleagues from abroad: what do we want to show with the red line, the didactic stripe. For me, for us, this is important. Foreigners rather seem to be irritated by it. I have seen similar markings in Luxembourg, but in France, for example, the original crown, cleaned up, is only delineated from the new masonry by tar paper. Here I do not want to go into the obviously harmful consequences. I renounced this marking at a site here in Hungary a few years ago on the grounds that the coping of a wall section should only be produced from stone found on the site. The argument behind the intervention that I devised was a somewhat convoluted quasi-anastyle. The new masonry, which turned out very nicely, can only be distinguished from the original by the colour of the mortar. Although the difference was made clearer than in Minissi Piazza Armerina's brilliant defensive building, it caused some headshaking among colleagues in this country. In Germany - to mention the practice of restoration in the country selected as an example - they start out from the British method of coping used before the Second World War: the wall remains are extended up to a certain horizontal level and the coping thus produced is capped by a concrete trough, which is then filled with earth and grassed. An arrangement which from the standpoint of building structure is obviously flawed seems nonetheless to be viable. Although I have seen this arrangement in a great many places, I have never detected signs of frost damage to the wall under the concrete „pad". It is of course quite likely that the aesthetic appearance of the monument is protected by regular maintenance. But the arrangement is architecturally inexplicable. The pedantically and unimaginatively fixed cut-off planes are somewhat repellent, and present a view devoid of informative value. On the other hand the appearance of monuments to the past must take into account the preservation of the community's sense of identity. In several little villages along the Rhine Limes, one finds Roman or later building remains in small, well-kept, neatly-landscaped surroundings. In the village of Hoheneck, continuous with Ludwigsburg, the rise in the terrain prevents the main building of a Roman